pothos.org

I split off the last few posts on Diodorus. Seemed the right thing to do because (a) I started this particular diversion and (b)these posts will probably get lost in such a long thread. Also, major (hopefully) news is due on the Amphipolis tomb.


Best regards,

There is not so very much news. Just a note that "human representations" [ανθρώπινων αναπαραστάσεων] were spotted during maintenance work on "architraves" [επιστύλια] found in the 3rd space. These were is some sense the first found (the first in the third chamber?) They have been subjected to preliminary cleaning and laser and other processes are to follow. Exactly what this means is very unclear at the moment. There is no photo yet. Apart from that, the Minister of Culture said that the work on this tomb could take five years to complete and it is better not to rush.
The fact that so little has been said (and nothing about the skeleton) may be more significant than what they have actually said. It means that they are still not ready to say anything officially about the skeleton a couple of weeks after it was disinterred. Perhaps there is some fundamental ambiguity: for example it might fall in the overlap between male and female distributions on skeletal features like the sciatic notch angle. (One Greek media report last week gave the height of the individual - which can be scaled from leg bones - as less than 1.65m, which might be a tallish woman or a shortish man.) Or perhaps the conclusions are sufficiently momentous as to require further cogitation before dissemination. It is also possible that they are being so careful to protect the DNA evidence that they really don't have the information yet: some reports have suggested that the bones were extracted still partly embedded in the soil in order to avoid disturbing them and key parts of the skeleton (pelvis, skull...) might have been smashed to fragments, creating a difficult jigsaw puzzle. The reason can only be a matter of speculation, but they are being very reticent about the skeleton.
Best wishes,
Andrew
Update: There is a bit more clarification here http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/38 ... cient-tomb. They are calling the representations "paintings" and Lina Mendoni implies that the skeleton has not yet been examined in a laboratory and that the first indications of the identity of the occupant will come from such an examination.

The reason is almost certainly that Mrs Peristeris will be allowed to present the findings; this is a stop gap announcement, and tells us nothing, apart from the possibility of wall paintings. another week to wait

That was a meaningless press conference - nothing new was learned except that the paintings on the archetraves were human representations. There were persistent rumours since September about something significant being present on the architraves, and that was one of the rumours that you could tell it was not unfounded: locals have seen them transfered under huge security measures, workers in the Amphipolis museum have also seen them (and yes if you look much, you can find their brief reports scattered on forums and blogs!), in some photos released, black bags were covering some structures in order to protect them (at the expected location of the architraves)etc. That was one of the two persistent and potentiall not ill-founded rumours. The second still remains to be confirmed and if it is, it would be rather exciting. Not sure if you like discussing rumours, so I d' better not post it.

Even the press release of today was carelesly prepared - they posted a screen cap of a mobile phone as a photo from the minister's visit to the site (and that is the second time they do that)! All other announcements were known from interviews of officials from the MC that took place the last two weeks. With Peristeri's presentation planned for next week it is maybe natural that not much was revealed today, maybe the don't want to steal her thunder, but lets hope she really has "thunders" for us prepared.

On another topic, I recently read a book about one more theory on Alexander the Great's final resting place (add the Great Pyramid to the list...):

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-gen ... end-002297

That was rather fun to read, of course you can imagine that the book has more references to legends than to credible sources (from what I understood) and assumptions are more than abundant. I got the feeling that the author would have written a different ending to her scenario if she knew about the Amphipolis excavations beforehand, but nevertheless, what I found interesting were her many references to the Macedonian Renaissance period of the Byzantine Empire. I never read much about that period of history (what are the sources?), but as wondering whether conditions then could have favourable for deciding the final fate of the Amphipolis tomb (sealing and hiding for protection).

I donot know who wrote the text to which you link but he is clearly a total moron ; look at that f''''g great pyramid I'd ride by had I notb read a secret text.... and so on ; by the way, no body in armour was found within this expletive probably believes that Keddedy was shot by Sheergar on Elvis's orders to cover up a crop circle conspiracy! I will relish a libel suit

agesilaos wrote:I donot know who wrote the text to which you link but he is clearly a total moron ; look at that f''''g great pyramid I'd ride by had I notb read a secret text.... and so on ; by the way, no body in armour was found within this expletive probably believes that Keddedy was shot by Sheergar on Elvis's orders to cover up a crop circle conspiracy! I will relish a libel suit

Most definately, one of the most credible sources of that book is the Alexander romance, so you can imagine.

system1988 wrote:The Greek tv show "Overthrow" - The entitre truth about Amphipolis - yesterday aired this episode about Amphipolis.

http://www.megatv.com/anatropi/default. ... d=34156777

In the episode some of the most well-known archaeologists of Greece talk about their take on the excavation as well as about their hypothesies as to who the deceased person is.

Dorothy King is also there through a statement of hers (unfortunately the only one you will understand as the entrire show is in Greek)

From left to right: Prof. Faklaris, Prof. Olga Palagia, Prof. Alevra, Prof. Valavanis, and on the screen Prof. Paliadeli (the one with the glasses) and Prof. Nakasis.

The conversation was interesting and many issues came to light- most of them have already been unravelled on Pothos. I hope someone has the time to translate the key points the guests make.

Here is a summary of what was said during the show.

First of all everyone agreed that they haven't had a close personal look at the monument, that they do not have any evidence, only know the site from the photos released to the public and they only make observations and hypothesies. Of all the guests mrs. Olga Palagia, the architect Nakasis and Faklaris are the "heretic" ones.

The professors were mainly asked about the date of the monument and the identity of the deceased.

Prof. Valavanis End of 4th BC - Begining of 3rd BC

The tomb was made froom the start to house only one deceased person because the structure of the peripheral wall is the same as the one in the tomb's interior. Also the tomb that was found in the underground along with the skeletal remains is made in such a way as to be visible exactly along the axis of the structure. This means that it is visible as soon as the doors open.

Roxane cannot be excluded as a candidate neither can Nearchos.


Prof. Olga Palagia

We make speculations. Based on the comparative evidence: There is another Macedonian tomb in Amphipolies, Tomb No. 3, which shares common characteristics with the Kasta. Peddle mosaic with rombhuses as well as box-shaped grave inside the burial chamber. The tomb dates back to End of 4th BC - Begining of 3rd BC as the tomb of Kasta.

The Kasta tomb however has had later interventions made on it. I am an expert on sculpture (she really is) and the Kariatids are from the 1st century BC. If such statues existed before that era we should have found them already. If they do existed this means that 200 passed without that style of sculpting being used?

As far as the skeletal remains go, they are not of Olympias as she was burried at Pydna, they do not belong to Alexander IV either as we have already found his grave. Hephaestion is not a candidate either as he was cremated at Ekvatana. Roxane, we do not know.


Prof Faklaris

The core of the tomb dates back from the end of the 4th BC to the beginings of 3rd BC but the tomb has been reused. The sculptures are more recent. We had a main burned deceased in the 3rd chamber who was the "famous" personality in the tomb. However the corpse was looted completely from looters. He may have been a general - but we should have expected an even larger tomb for such a figure because we already know of such a monument 9 meters high (Kasta is only 4). The skeletal remains was merely a relative of the famous deceased person whose remains were taken by the looters.

The marble lion may not have been atop the monument as in 1915 soldiers found near Strimonas river foundations and pieces of it. Simply, during the rebuilding of the lion near the river the marble covering of the peripheral wall of Kasta tomb was used. We have yet to see the smaller remains found inside the tomb as the television broadcasts only show the impressive findings.


Prof Georgia Kokorou - Alevra

She is an expert on sculpture. She dates the monument back at the end of the 4th BC to the beginings of 3rd BC. The Kariatids are the same date as the tomb. The particular style may have been invented right at that time and then never used again (here Mrs. Palagia intervened saying that the art tends to always continue throught the ages).

What's also raising questions is that the underground grave protrudes from the 3rd chamber floor by 20-30 centimeters. Is it possible that the floor was made later on? Why is it made from porolithos, such a cheap material? When did the dirt was let in? When did the looting take place?
We were also told that the pelvis of the deceased was in pieces.


Archaeologist Paliadeli Chrisoula

She dates the monument back at the end of the 4th BC to the beginings of 3rd BC as well. The Kariadts date back to the same period because they are structural elements of the tomb as they provide support. (Here Faklaris responded that even without the Kariatids the monument's stability would not suffer).

The porolithos floor of the 3rd chamber is the initial one as we find it at the base of the threshold, right where we expected it to be. Yes, the grave does protrude but its symmetry excludes the chance of it being seperate from the rest of the structure.

As far as the skeletal remains go lets wait for the anthropoligsts results. The Temenids dynasty were traditionally buried at Aegaes and at Pella but perhaps the remains at Kasta belong to Antipatros who was regent at that time.


Architect Nakasis

The skeletal remains are not burned. So they have nothing to do with this luxurius monument. The floor may have beem pierced in order for the grave to be made and this shows from the grave itself being very "poor". The porolithos is a cheap material for a floor (speaks sarcastically) and may have been covered with a persian carpet. If we had shards from the foundations trench the monument would be immediately dated.

1) The lion was not atop the monument
2) The Shinxes have a scythe-like end at their wings and therefore cannot protrude from the arch
3) The Kariatids didn't have their hands extended but they had them instead touching the ceiling as to provide support.


Best

Pauline

Thanks a lot, Pauline, for this very interesting summary.

system1988 wrote: Prof Georgia Kokorou - Alevra

She is an expert on sculpture. She dates the monument back at the end of the 4th BC to the beginings of 3rd BC. The Kariatids are the same date as the tomb. The particular style may have been invented right at that time and then never used again (here Mrs. Palagia intervened saying that the art tends to always continue throught the ages).

What's also raising questions is that the underground grave protrudes from the 3rd chamber floor by 20-30 centimeters. Is it possible that the floor was made later on? Why is it made from porolithos, such a cheap material? When did the dirt was let in? When did the looting take place?
We were also told that the pelvis of the deceased was in pieces.

Interesting about the pelvis. It further confirms that this was a desecration, which included bone smashing. It is also the key bit for sex determination, so may explain their difficulties. I wonder where she got her information? She seems to be closest to the archaeologists in her conclusions. It is correct that the whole monument must be contemporaneous, because the masonry inside and outside and for the lion monument is identical. It is also obvious that the grave beneath Chamber 3 is different and of much lower quality, but logically it must be the thing that the sealer & desecrator was trying to destroy and hide, so it must be (a bit) older and more important than the monument rather than younger and unimportant. The third chamber floor is obviously a sealing layer and not wholly original. The official descriptions say its stones had subsided into the area of sand fill where the sand had compacted into the grave over time.
Best wishes,
Andrew

Since the pelvis is composed of several different bones the fact that a 2,400 year old one should be found in pieces need not imply that it has been smashed, nor does desecration stand up, the sphinx head found in chamber three would seem to have been moved for safe keeping rather than any other more sinister purpose.

The knowledge that the pelvis is smashed comes from a statement of Ms. Mendoni (Secretary General of the MC, overlooking the excavations at Kasta), in one of her many interviews. I think Kokorou-Alevra refers to that - she has no insider's info.

In one of her other interviews, Prof. Palagia also said that the mosaic does not look representative of other mosaics of the period proposed for the tomb (end of 4th century BC). She argued that the use of bright colors was uncommon, most mosaics had geometric shapes and colours where more greyish.

Is it 'smashed' or just 'in pieces'? The full details of how the skeleton was found are as hard to ascertain as the dating evidence! Roll on 29th.

Thank you, Pauline, for your very useful summary. I heard a half of the program and I admit that I had the same impression as Olga Palagia on the later dating of the Karyatids (however poor an expert I am )!

agesilaos wrote:Is it 'smashed' or just 'in pieces'? The full details of how the skeleton was found are as hard to ascertain as the dating evidence! Roll on 29th.

From the context of what was said during that interview, I gathered that it probaly means "in pieces". Mendoni also stated that the bones show no signs of cremation or embalment, but I wouldn't count on that. I don't think she can judge these things by just looking the remains (especially the embalment issue).

gepd wrote:

agesilaos wrote:Is it 'smashed' or just 'in pieces'? The full details of how the skeleton was found are as hard to ascertain as the dating evidence! Roll on 29th.

From the context of what was said during that interview, I gathered that it probaly means "in pieces". Mendoni also stated that the bones show no signs of cremation or embalment, but I wouldn't count on that. I don't think she can judge these things by just looking the remains (especially the embalment issue).

Just to be clear, agesilaos is suggesting that Lina Mendoni used "in pieces" to mean that the bones were intact (not broken), but no longer touching one another (disarticulated). Is that what you and system88 understand her to have meant, please? (We already knew that from the fact that the bones were scattered inside and outside the grave slot.)
Best wishes,
Andrew